If another state previously subjected a pre-SORA offender to a registration requirement, requiring him to register in Indiana is not punitive. It is irrelevant where or when the conviction occurred, as long as another state imposed a lawful registration obligation on the offender and SORA does not so significantly alter that obligation to result in added punishment.
Criminal
Strack v. State, No. 22S-CR-137, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2022).
At sentencing, a criminal defendant who enters an open guilty plea has a right to allocution distinct from the right to present evidence on his or her behalf.
Reyes v. State, No. 21A-CR-2646, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2022).
Because Indiana Jury Rule 26(a) affords trial courts the option to give final instructions before or after closing arguments, a court can do either without abusing its discretion.
Ramirez v. State, No. 21S-CR-373, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 27, 2022).
The Indiana Trial Rules do not require the requesting party to state a specific need for copies. Instead, the requesting party need only describe the item “with reasonable particularity” and “specify a reasonable time, place, and manner” for copying the item. To the extent a local rule conflicts with said mandate, the local rule is void. Moreover, when a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, the trial court must evaluate and compare the parties’ diverse interests that would be impacted by altering the schedule.
Davis v. State, No. 21A-CR-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2022).
Although Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b) cases typically involve the issue of whether prior bad acts of the defendant are admissible, Rule 404(b) does not prohibit application to subsequent acts.